relationships Flashcards
sperm cell characteristics
energetically cheap
extremely small
highly mobile
sexual selection
-explains why certain seemingly disadvantageous characteristics from an evolutionary point of view are still passed on
because these characteristics may be advantageous for sexual selection
e.g. males behave more aggressively have greater chance of protecting their female from competing males
females with characteristics of fertility e.g. narrow waist large hips
determine which genes passed on to offspring through process of heredity
egg cell characteristics
energetically expensive
relatively large
static
inter sexual selection
preferred female strategy
quality over quantity
favoured by females as they place greater investment into time, raising a child in comparison to males
need to make sure partner is right genetic fit by being willing to provide resources to support her and child
female more selective as produce limited numbers of egg cells
limited reproductive resources
example of inter sexual selection
fishers sexy son hypothesis
suggest females who mate with males who have certain characteristics e.g height
their son will then inherit this sexy trait
intra sexual selection
preferred male strategy
quantity over quality approach
favoured by males as their male strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible
winner of competition reproduces and passes on the genes to his offspring that contributed to his success
e.g. larger male will fight off his competitors and have stronger sons
A03 for evolutionery explanations
research support for inter sexual selection-Clark and Hatfield
research support for partner preferences to anigisonomy-Buss
weakness-partner preferences ignore cultural and social influences
research support on inter sexual selection (Clark and Hatfield)
showed females are more selective
used both male and female psychology students
sent out across uni campus
approached other students and asked them 1 of 3 questions
Would you go on a date with me
would you go back to my apartment
would you have sex with me
results Q1 50% 50%
Q2 69% 6%
Q3 75% 0%
shows support for idea that men want to impregnate as many women as possible due to high sperm rate production with little energy required
shows females more selective
CP-criticised for having narrow sample (undergraduate studies)
does not use all types of people
hard to conclude where older, non student sample would be as selective
strength-research support for partner preferences for anisogamy
Buss
conducted survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries
asked questions relating to age and variety of attibutes that evolutionery theory predicts is important in partner preference
found females place greater value on resource related characteristics e.g. good financial prospects
found males put more importance on good looks an chastity and prefer younger mates more then females do
what is anisogamy
differences between male and female sex cells
what is chasitity
vrigin
weakness-partner preferences ignore social and cultural influences
partner preferences have been influenced by change in social norms
develop much quicker then evolutionary timescales imply and came about due to cultural factors e.g availability of contraception
women’s greater role in workforce means not as dependent on men to provide for them
self disclosure definition
revealing personal info about yourself
romantic partners reveal more about true selves as relationship develops
self disclosures can strengthen romantic bond
social penetration theory
gradual process of revealing personal info, of giving away deepest thoughts and feelings
in romantic relationships, involves reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners
one partner reveals personal info, signalling ‘i trust you’
go further, other partner must reveal sensitive info
increasingly disclose more and more, penetrate more into each other lives, gain greater understanding of each other
onion analogy
relationship progresses, more layers of onion are removed
representing deeper and more meaningful info being disclosed
only likely to occur if exchange of info is reciprocal
exchanges represents a stage in relationship which is serious and characterised by trust
breadth and depth of self disclosure
both increase, partners become more committed to eachother
start of relationship what we reveal is described as superficial meaning at low risk and would tell anyone
breadth of disclosure is narrow as most topics are off limit
if reveal too much too soon, can be seen as TMI and can threaten relationship before it’s really got going
relationship progresses, reveal more about true selves
eventually, able to reveal high risk info e.g past experiences
strange of self disclosure
support from research studies
laurenceau used method involved writing daily diary enteries
found self disclosure and perception of self disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term married couples
reverse was also true
strength as suggests that the depth and breadth of self disclosure is strongly predictable of the intimacy and quality of romantic relationships
supports validity of social penetration theory as indicator of relationship quality
weakness of self disclosure
Tan get al
social penetration theory is not applicable to all cultures
prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self disclosure will lead to more satisfying and intimate relationship is not true for all cutlrures
tang concluded that men and women is us (individualist) self disclose significantly more sexual thought and feeling than men and women in china (collectivist)
weakness as it suggests that self disclosure theory is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships
not generalisable to other cultures
strength of self disclosure
real life applications
has and stattford have shown that an increased understanding of the importance of self disclosure in building and maintaining intimacy within relationships can have real life advantage
researchers found that for couples with high level of intimacy and commitment, 57% reported use of self disclosure as a way to maintain it and deepen their committed relationships
therefore, supports use of therapies which focus on increasing the depth and breadth of self disclosure for couples who struggle with intimacy as well as trust within relationship
also increases validity if social penetration theory
physical attractiveness
shackelford and larson found that people were classed as more attractive if they had
symmetrical faces because may be honest signal of genetic fitness(harder to fake)
baby face features e.g smooth chin, small nose. widely separated large eyes, trigger a protective and caring instinct, valuable for resource for females wanting to reproduce
halo effect
suggests that we have a tendency to associate attractive people with preconceived disproportionately positive characteristics e.g wealth even though these factors may not be linked
therefore, more likely to view them as kind, social, more successful compared to unattractive people
therefore, makes us even more attracted to them so we believe positively towards them-self fulfilling prospheracy
matching hypothesis
states that people choose romantic partners who are roughly a similar attractiveness to each other
we desire most physically attractive partner for evolutionary, social and cultural psychological reasons
however, balance this against wish to avoid being rejected by someone out of our league, someone who is unlikely to consider us physically attractive
there is a difference between what we would like in an ideal partner and what we are prepared to settle for
filter theory definition
an explanation of relationship formation
suggest that there are several important filters
help people to sift through potential partners to chose the right one
social demography, similarity in attitudes, complementarity
social demography
refers to wide range of factors all which influence chances of potential partners meeting in first place e.g geographical location(proximity)
social class
religion
similarity in attitudes
in early stages, we find partners who share same values attractive
therefore, we tend to discount those who significantly differ from us in their attitudes
need for partners in early stages to agree with basic values. encourages deeper communication and promotes self disclosure
complementarity
concerns ability for romantic partners to meet each others needs
similarity becomes less important at later stages and is replaced by need for partner to balance out your traits with opposite ones of their own e.g one partner enjoying being made to laugh, another partner enjoying making them laugh
a03-strength of filter theory
supporting research
evidence to support that filter theory is an important predictor of progression and initial development of a relationship
as suggested by Winch
he found initial similarities in beliefs and attitudes were citied as one of most attractive features in the partners of respondents
strength as shows even in modern age filter theory and matching hypothesis are still valid explanations for relationship formation
strength of filter theory
supporting research
Festinger observed friendships that formed in block of apartments for married students who lived across 17 buildings
results showed most popular people lived closest to staircases and post-boxes
these students were more likely to be bumped into and had most contact and formed friendships with other residents in the block
strength as supports social demography as a factor affecting attraction
also supports idea that most meaningful interactions are with people nearby
social exchange theory
economic theory of how relationships form and develop
claims partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards e.g. support, companionship and minimise costs e.g. commitments
rewards costs and profits
ideas of rewards and costs are subjective
what is considered costly by one person can be seen as low cost or even reward for another
also value of rewards and costs may change throughout course of relationship
what is seen as costly or rewarding in early stages, may becomes less as time goes on
comparison level
based on persons idea pf how much reward they deserve to receive in a relationship
perception becomes more sophisticated and accurate with experience as can base our CL off a larger number of experiences and relationships
also influenced by social and cultural factors e.g books, tv programmes
closely linked to self esteem
person with high self esteem likely to have higher expectations of rewards within relationship
person with low self esteem will have lower expectations
person will feel the relationship should be pursued if its equal to or above what they experienced in previous relationships
comparison level for alternatives
concerns a persons perception as to whether other relationships or staying on their own would be more rewarding then current relationship
will stay in current relationship only if we believe its more rewarding then alternatives
if costs outweigh rewards, then alternatives become more attractive
duck says if people consider themselves to be content in their current relationship, they may not even notice that there are available alternatives
stages of relationship development
Sampling stage-people explore potential rewards and costs of relationship not just romantic ones by observing others
Bargaining stage-beginning of relationship when romantic partners exchange rewards and costs and discuss what’s most profitable
Commitment stage-as relationship becomes more stable, partners become more familiar with rewards and costs and expectations so rewards increase and costs lessen
Institutionalisation stage-partners now settle down because norms of the relationship rewards and costs are firmly established
a03-weakness (2) of the social exchange theory
SET is reductionist- basing explanation of complex phenomena or romantic relationships purely on costs and rewards makes it reductionist
limits range of real life romantic experiences it can explain
e.g. does not explain why some people stay in abusive relationships despite lack of rewards and overwhelming costs
weakness as shows a holistic approach may be better in studying romantic relationships
lacks mundane realism-
emerson and cook designed lab study
where each of 112 participants were bargaining with a partner to maximise personal score on computer game. Relationships between these partners are nothing like real life romantic relationships which are based on getting to know each other and establishing trust
weakness as these studies lack validity making SET less applicable to real life romantic relationships
study tip:MR
maddie rose
strength of SET
supporting research
Sprecher found that comparison levels for alternatives were a strong predictor of commitment within a relationships
rewards were important as a predictor of satisfaction especially for women
strength as supports the idea that some people choose to stay in their current relationships while it remains more profitable then alternatives
equity theory
economic theory which suggests that partners are concerned about fairness
in relationships
fairness is achieved when people feel they get what they deserve from relationship
not the size of the rewards and costs that matter: its the ratio of the two to each other
role of equity
equity means fairness
what matters is both partners level of profit (rewards-costs) are roughly the same
when there is lack of equity, one partner over benefits and one under benefits- recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness
under benefit feels dissatisfaction e.g. resentment
over benefit feels guilt and shame
equity and equality
according to equity theory, not size of ornament of rewards and costs but the ratio of the two to each other
if one partner puts lot into relationship and gets a lot out this will be fair enough
ensures rewards are distributed fairly not necceasrily equal between the partners
ducks model of relationship definition
explanation of the stages people go through when their relationship is not working
when one partner is dissatisfied, there are four phases in the process
what are the 4 phases of ducks model
intra psychic phase
dyadic phase
social phase
grave dressing phase
intra psychic phase
partner weighs up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives including being alone
e.g i cant stand this anymore
dyadic phase
individuals confront their partner and discuss their feelings and future of the relationship
couples become aware of the forces that bind them together e,g children that would be incurred if they broke up
two possible outcomes-determination to continue breaking up or a desire to repair it
social phase
break up is made public-partners will seek support
mutual friends are expected to choose a side
gossip is encouraged
some friends provide reassurance and place the blame on one partner or the other
grave dressing phase
once relationship is dead, its time to bury it
each partner must present themselves to others as being trust worthy and loyal to attract a new partner
individuals create a favourable story about the breakup which presents them in a positive light and the other partner in bad light
gossip plays important role
weakness-there are methodological issues within Ducks phase model or relationship breakdown
definition of Rusbults investment model of relationships
theory which explains why some people may remain in a relationship while others may not
what 5 things need to be mentioned in A01 of Rusbult
Satisfaction
Investment size
Comparison with alternatives
Commitment level
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
study tip : SICC R
satisfaction
based on concept of comparison level
satisfying relationship judged by comparing rewards and costs
seen as profitable if many rewards e.g sex and few costs e.g arguments
each partner is staisfied if they get more out of relationship then previous experiences
investment size
measure of all the resources that are attached to the relationship, and which would reduce in value or be lost completely if relationship ended
two major types
intrinsic-any resources that we put directly into relationship e.g tangible things such as cash
extrinsic investment-resources that previously did not feature in relationship but now closely associated with it e.g house
comparison with alternatives
leads to partner asking themselves would my needs be met otuside of my current relationship either with someone else or by myself
commitement level
likelhood that an involvement will persist
high when satisfaction is high
low when satisfaction is low
relationship maintenace mechnsims
put their partners interst firsr and forgive them for both minor and serious mistakes
virtual relationships definition
relationships where people are not physically present but communicate exclusively using online methods such as emails
adv of virtual relationships
don’t have to meet up
don’t require much time and effort
less arguments
dis of virtual relationships
may not be who they think they are
fake what they look like (catfish)
ghost you
face to face vs online relationships
idea that self disclosure tends to occur much faster in virtual relationship
reason for this is animosity, people tend to hold off disclosing personal info in real life for fear of rejection , unless confident enough that personal experiences they share to that person wont then leak it to mutual friends
hyperpersonal model
Walther argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self disclosure then FtF ones
due to idea that online relationships can develop much quicker as self disclosure happens earlier
once established, more intense and intimate
according to hyperpersonal model, feature of self disclosure in virtual relationships is that sender has more time to manipulate their own image than they would in FtF situation
stranger on the train effect
Rubin explained that we are more likely to disclose personal info to people we dont know and wont see again
reduced cues theory
Keisler and Sproull through their Reduced cues theory, suggests CMC relationships may have poorer levels of intimacy and delayed self disclosure because some of the vital cues present in FtF relationships such as facial expressions and voice intonation are not present in CMC relationships leader to the de-individualisation of each partner
absence of gating in virtual relationships
a gate is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship
FtF interaction is gated in that it involves many features that interfere with the early development of a relationship
examples of gates include physical unattractivess, a stammer, social anxiety (shyness, blushing etc)
weakness-lack of research support for the reduced cues theory
theory is wrong to suggest that non-verbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. They are different rather than absent. Walther and Tidwell suggest that people in online interactions use cues which are different from those in face to face ones. Such cues include the style and timing of messages
strength-research support for the hyperpersonal model
predicts that people arer motivated to self-disclose in CMC in ways which are sometimes ‘hyperhonest’ and ‘hyperdishonest’ online disclosures
strength-social media has helped form friendships for shy people
social media sites such as Facebook have social benefits by helping shy people have better quality friendships. foe example, Baker and Oswald tested whether shy people really do benefit from internet use
weakness-virtual relationships in social media doo not distingush tupes of CMC
level of self disclosure varies considerably and its extent and depth depend very much on the type of CMC being used
equity theory
economic theory that suggesys partners are concerned with fariness in a relationship
fairness achieved if people feel they get what they deserve in realtionship
not the size of the rewards and costs that matter,it is the ratio of the two to eachotherr
role of equity
term means fairness
what matters most with equity is that both partners level of profit (reward minus costs) roughly the same
when there is a lack of equity meaning one partner over benefits or one partner underbenefits then this causes recipe for dissatisfction and unhappiness
one who over benfitis may feel gulit and shame
one who underbenfits feel greatest disatifaction e.g resentment
equity and equality
not the size of rewards and cost whihc matter, ratio between the two to each other
if one person puts a lot into realitosnhip, but gets a lot out of it then thats fair enough
rusbults investment model of relationships
definition-theory which explains why osme people may remain in a relationship while others may not
s
i
c
c
consequences of inequality
problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into the relaitonship but gets little from it
what makes us most disattisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on
investment size
measure of all resoyrces that are attached to the relationship
intrinisc investment-any resoruecs whcih we put directly into relationship
tangible things e.g money
extrinisc invesmtnet-resourecs whhich did not previously feature in relaitonship but now closley associtedd with it
e.g house car
satifaction
based on concept of comparison level
satisyfing relaitonship is judged by comparing rewards and costs
seen as profitbale if it has many rewards e.g sex, companisonship and little costs e.g stress arguments
sompariosn with alternatives
leads to partners asking themselves could my needs be better met outside of my current relationship
are the alternatives more rewarding and less costly
ducks model
explanation of stages people go through when therir relaitonship is not working
once partner is dissatified, the process each with a different focus
intra psychic phase
partmer weighs up pors and cins of the relaitonship and evalutts these against the alternatives
i cant stand this anymore
social phase
break up is made public-partners will seek support
mutual freinds aer expected to choose a side
gossip is traded and encouraged
some freinds provide reassurance whilst others will be judgmental and place the balme on one partner ot antoher
dyadic phase
individuals confront t their partner and sicus their feeling sand future
couples become aware of forces that bind them together e.g children and costs that would be incurred if they broke up
two possible outcoes-determnation to continue breaking up or a desire to repair it
grave dressing phase
once relaitonship is dead, time to bury it
stratigeiclaly reinterrpreat the view of the partner
create a favourable syory about the breakup which presnts them in a postive light and other in a bad light
gossip plays an important role
virtual relationships
relationships where people are not phsycially present but communicate exculsivle using online methods sucg as emails, soical media, texting
face to face v online relaitonships
hyperpersonal model
online realitosnhops can be more personal ad involve greater self dicolosure than f to face ones
sexual selction
explains why certainly disadvantgeus charctiertsidstics from an evolutionery point of view are still passed on
this is because it may be advnatgeous for seuxal selection e.g male who behaves agressively, more chance of protecting female from comepting male
anigosmy-differences in male and female sex cells
sperm cell
energetically cheap
extremely small
high;y mobile
egg cell
energetically expensive
rlaitovely large
static
inter secual selction
female preffered stratgey
qulaity over quanity approach
favoured by females as place greater investment in time, reosurecs for rasing hild compared ot males
they want o assure the male is the right genetic fit, willing to and can provide for her and child
egg cells are produced in limited numbers of intervals meansing females tedn to eb more selctive as to whp they choose to mate with fishesrs sexy son hypothsis
intra sexual selcetion
male pr3ffeeed strategy
quanity over qulity approach
favoured by males as have optimal mating stretgy to Mate with as many fertaile females as possible
if in comp, reproduces and passes on gene to offspring which contributed to their sucess
support for partner prefernces of anigmosy
buss conducted surevy of 10,000 aduats in 33 counteries
asked questions on age and varitey of attiubutes which evolutionery thery predict is important for partner preference
female-placed greater value on resource related charctietis e.g finaical prospects
male-placed greater impotance on good looks and charisity and preffered younger mates to females
support for inter sexual selction
clark and hatfield showed that females are more selctive
asked female and male psychology students togo around uni campus asking 1 of 3 questions
would you go on date with me 50 50
woudl you go back to my apratment 69 6v
would you have sex with me 75 0
shows that males have a pre-dispostiion to want to mate with as many fertile females as psosible due to high sperm porducion and little enrgy required
also shows females are more slctive
howeevr, criticed for using narrow sample of undergraduates
dont know if non-student older smaple would be more selctive
not gernlisbale to ALL females
ignores social and cultural differences
partner prefernces have chnaged rapidly due to changes in social norms
cultural factors may include the use of contraception
increase in amount of women in workforce means they dont rely on men to provide resices
may show chnage in partner prefernec, being no longer reouce orientated
face to face v online realtionships
one prominent difference is that self disclosure tends to occur much faster
one reason is th anlaymity, people tend to hold off disclosing personal info in real life for fear of being ridiculed or rejectio
unelss confident enough that they can trust that person
musch less risk in virtual relaitonships so people can shareexperinces and throught without risk of getting to people they know
self disclosure
revelaing ersonal info. in romanctic relaitonships, as relaitonship develops, reveal more, strengthening romantic bond
social penetration theory-gradual process of revealing personal info
in romancit relaitonships, recipriocal exchange of info
e.g one partner reveals personal info signalling ‘i trust you’
other partner must then to go further reveal sentive info
more they disclose, more they penrate into eachother lives, greater understanding of eachother
onion analogy-as relaionship progresses, more layers are removed represnting deeper adn more meaningful info being reveale. has to be repirocal, e.e the other person showing empahty and revealing perosnal info about themselves such exchange represnets a stage in relationship which is serious and characteristeed by trust
bread and depth of self disclsoure-as both increase, become more commited to eachoerh
early stages of relationship, what we reveal is superficial meaning on the surface and low risk, would tell anyone e.g freinds and fiaimly
bradth f self discosure is narrow meaning most topics are off limit
if reveal too much too sonn, may get reposne tmi, threatning realtionship before really stated
as relationship porgresses, reveal more high risk info e.gp ast expeirnecs
sacred
support from resaerch studies
laurenceau used method involving writing daily diary enteires
found that self disclosure and perception of self disclosure in partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term married couples
strength as suggest that depth and breadth of self disclosure make it strongly predictbale of the intimacy and quality of romantic relationships
cultural differences
social penetraiton theory is not applicable to all cultures
tang concludes that individualst cultures e.g us self disclosure significantly more sexual throuhts and feelings then men and women in china (collectivist)
wekaness as shows limited explanation of romantic relationships
real world applications
research into self disclosure can help people who want to communicate in theirr relationships
use self disclosure delibertaly nad skillfully from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond
foudn that couples with high level so fintinacy, 57% reprted the use of self disclsoure as a way to maintin and deepen commitedd relaitonships
physcial attractivness
shackelforx and larson foun that people with symatircal faces seen as more attracive, honest singal of genetic fitness
also those with babdy face feautues e.g delicate chin, small nose and wide alreg eyes as tirgger protive instrinct-impiratnt for femaleas wanting to repordicue
halo effect-tenacy to associate highly attracive peiple with pre-concived dieporstily postive charactietids e.g wealth even tho may not be linked
find attractive poeple kind, social in comparion to unattraive poeple
makes us even more attraced to us-self fulfilling prosperachy
matching hypothsis-states we choose romantic partner who are sourghly same attractivness as us
desire highly atrtaive poeple due to evoultionery factrs
balance tjis aganst wthe wish to not be rejected from someone out of our leage
differene in what we see in ideal partneradn what were prepeared to settle for
RICH
reseach support for halo effect
peterson and plamer found that physically attracive people were rated as more politically knowledge then unattatcive popel. halo effect was that powerrful that it persisted even when participantss knew that these knowledge peoplle had no particualr expertise
individual difefrences
shown that halo effect and phsycial attractivenss may vary in its importance as predictor of quanlty of early relaitonships
